The following clause, extracted from a recent treaty of the United States, illustrates the principle involved: "Every right, privilege, or immunity that the Egyptian Government now grants, or may grant in future, to the subjects or citizens, vessels, commerce, and navigation of whatsoever other foreign power, shall be granted to citizens of the United States, vessels, commerce, and navigation, who shall have the right to enjoy the same." References. The most valuable collection of treaties in the English language is that of Hertslet, vols. i.-iv. This work should be used in connection with "The Map of Europe by Treaty," by the same author. For the treaties of the United States, see Treaties and Conventions of the United States," etc., 1776-1889, and "The United States Statutes at Large" (annual vols.), 1889-1899. The Spanish work of Calvo, in six volumes, contains all treaties negotiated by the Latin states of America prior to 1862. There are many valuable collections of treaties to which the Continental states of Europe have been parties. None of them are complete, however. Jenkinson's collection contains most English treaties between 1648 and 1785. See also G. F. de Martens, “Esquisse d'une Histoire Diplomatique des Traités," etc.; "Recueil des Principaux Traités," etc., 1761-1818, by G. F. de Martens, with Murrhard's continuation, bringing the work to 1860; and the "Corps Universal Diplomatique" of J. Dumont, which, with its additions, etc., covers, with more or less fulness, the period between 315 and 1738 A.D. Rymer's "Fœdera," etc., contains a collection of treaties, between England and other powers, between the years 1101 and 1654. A supplement to this work, in fifty-seven volumes, is preserved in the British Museum. For a full bibliography of this subject, see Klüber, pp. 424-437. In connection with the general subject of treaties, see also Vattel, liv. ii. chapters xii.xvii.; Holtzendorff, §§ 26-28; Heffter, §§ 81-89; Klüber, §§ 141-165; Bluntschli, §§ 402-461; II Phillimore, §§ 44-99; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 152-154; Hall, §§ 107-117; I Halleck, chap. viii.; Woolsey, §§ 101-113; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 252-289; I Twiss, §§ 224-264; I Lorimer, pp. 260269; I Wildman, chap. iv.; II Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 886-1224; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 130-166; V Moore's Dig. Int. Law, §§ 734-780; Maxey, Int. Law, Pp. 178-194; Hannis Taylor, Int. Law, §§ 65-95, 334-400; I Oppenheim, PP. 517-560. 1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 272. For a clause placing an interpretation upon a favored nation clause, see the treaty between the United States and Ecuador, Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 264. See also the article by M. Ernest Lehr, on the most favored nation clause, in vol. xxv. Revue de Droit Int. pp. 313-323; V Moore's Dig. Int. Law, § 765. CHAPTER IX THE CONFLICT OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS: THE ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES, MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, RETORSION, REPRISALS, PACIFIC BLOCKADE Procedure in Cases of Conflict. When a conflict of international rights arises, as is the case whenever one state has a cause of difference with another, it is customary for the state whose rights have been denied, or trespassed upon, to make known its cause of complaint to the offending state, and to demand that justice be done for the wrong that has been committed. The urgency of this demand is always proportional to the gravity and importance of the injury sustained. The motive of some violations of perfect or sovereign rights may be so obvious and unmistakable that no explanations are asked for by the offended state, and resort is at once had to forcible measures of redress. On the other hand, the offence may consist in the violation of some minor rule of comity of so little importance that a mere exchange of diplomatic notes is deemed a sufficient remedy. Between these two extremes lie the various methods of settling international disputes.' Methods of Adjustment. Those most frequently resorted to are: (a.) An amicable adjustment of the difference by the interested states. (b.) Mediation. (c.) Arbitration. The Amicable Adjustment of Disputes. A cause of difference between two sovereign states may arise, (a) as a consequence of friction in the relations of the states themselves 1 ' III Phillimore, pp. 1, 2; II Ferguson, p. 220; Walker, Manual, p. 93. as bodies corporate, or (b) as a consequence of injuries alleged to have been sustained by a citizen of the one from the government of the other. In the latter case it is a rule observed by all states that the citizen or subject who prefers the complaint will be required to show, to the satisfaction of the Foreign Office of the state to which such complaint is presented, that he has resorted to, and exhausted, all local means of redress provided by the state by whom the injury is alleged to have been inflicted, before bringing the matter to the attention of his own government.' A citizen of one nation, wronged by the conduct of another nation, must seek redress through his own government. His sovereign must assume the responsibility of presenting his claim, or it need not be considered.-United States vs. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520 [524]. The usage of sovereigns is not to interfere in the administration of justice until the foreign subject who complains has gone with his case to the court of dernier resort. - Pagan's Case, I Opin. Att.-Gen. p. 25, Randolph (1792). A nation ought not to interfere in the causes of its citizens brought before foreign tribunals, except in a case of refusal of justice or of palpable injustice. Green's case, I Ibid. p. 53, Bradford (1794). The rule that before a citizen of a country is entitled to the aid of his government in obtaining redress for wrongs done him by another government, he must have sought redress in vain through the judicial tribunal of that other government, is inapplicable where the offending government, by the acts of its proper organ, relieves the injured party from the obligation of pursuing such a course. - Panama Transit Tax, XIII Ibid. p. 547, Akerman (1871). Where an officer with a party of armed men, acting under an order of a judicial officer of the port of Granada, seized an American vessel at that port, kept possession of it a few hours, and then withdrew pursuant to an order of the same judge, the seizure having been made for the purpose of enforcing a supposed legal right: Held, that this government ought not to make reclamation in behalf of the owner, as it is presumable that if the proceedings were illegal the judicial tribunals of Nicaragua will afford redress. - Case of the Tipitapa, XIII Ibid. p. 554, Akerman (1872). A Spanish-owned vessel on her way from New York to Havana, being in distress, put, by leave of the admiral commanding the squadron, into Port Royal, S. C., then in rebellion and blockaded by a government fleet, and was seized as prize of war and used by the government. She was afterwards condemned as prize, but ordered to be restored. She never was restored; damages for her seizure, detention, and value being awarded: Held, that clearly she was not prize of war or subject to capture, and that her owners were entitled to fair indemnity, although it might well be doubted whether the case was not more properly a subject for diplomatic adjustment than for determination by the courts. The Nuestra Señora de Regla, 17 Wallace, 30. Procedure. Whenever a state has occasion to complain of the action of another towards itself or towards one of its subjects, a statement of the particular act complained of is prepared in the Foreign Office of the offended state. This statement is based upon all the ascertainable facts of the case, which should be so carefully sifted and verified, by those charged with their investigation, as to make it impossible to question their substantial accuracy. This is necessary because it is impossible, in international affairs, to produce evidence in the ordinary legal acceptation of the term. The facts thus ascertained and verified are next examined with a view to ascertaining whether they do, or do not, constitute a violation of international law. If they do a statement of the case is prepared and a formal demand for redress is submitted, through the proper diplomatic channels, to the government by whom the injury was committed. In support of this case reference is made to the works of standard text-writers, to the provisions of treaties, if the case be covered by them, and to precedents in international intercourse, especially to those established by the offending state in its international relations. In conclusion, such explanation, disavowal, or reparation is demanded as is warranted by the circumstances of the case.' If that government be clearly in the wrong it acknowledges its error, or disavows the act of its subordinate officials; and offers reparation, accompanied by such explanation and apology as the occasion seems to demand. In cases where such a remedy is suitable, money indemnities are agreed upon and paid to injured parties. It rarely happens, however, that either state, in a particular controversy, is either entirely right, or entirely wrong; and the same facts are, in general, differently regarded by each of two interested states. This leads to controversial discussion, each state advancing arguments and citing authorities in support of that view of the 1 II De Martens, § 251; Creasy, First Platform, §§ 322-372; III Phillimore, pp. 1-17; Vattel, liv. ii. ch. xviii. $$ 323-326; II Ferguson, § 158; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 213-222. 2 See, in this connection, the discussion of the right of a state to protect its citizens abroad, pp. 9598.. case which it believes to be most nearly in accordance with justice. A correspondence of this kind may continue through a period of years, and rarely leads to results of direct or immediate importance. It is resorted to when two states cherish different views as to the justice of a practice maintained or advocated by one and denied by the other. Such was the long controversy between England and the United States upon the right of search, which extended over a period of more than fifty years. When a nation complains of a clear and decided violation of international law, however, and no dispute exists as to the facts in the case, reparation on the part of the offending state is usually made with the greatest promptness.' Duty of Moderation. In this method of adjustment, much depends upon the tact and moderation shown by the diplomatic representatives of the interested states in dealing with the question of difference. "It not infrequently happens that The following cases are cited in illustration of this principle: Case of the Laconia. În December, 1878, the American whalingship Laconia, while in the port of Zanzibar, Africa, was boarded by an officer of the British ship-of-war Leader, Captain Earl. The boarding party took from the Laconia three Africans, claiming that they were slaves, Captain Earl justifying his act under the treaty of 1862, between England and the United States, for the suppression of the slave-trade. The matter was represented to the British Government, by whom the action of Captain Earl was promptly disapproved, and the regrets of Her Majesty's Government at the occurrence were conveyed, through the British minister, to the government at Washington. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1879, pp. 415432. Case of the James Bliss. In 1872 the American schooner James Bliss was seized, in British territorial waters, by the Canadian police cutter Stella Maris, for an alleged violation of the fishery laws. Soon after her arrival in the port of Gaspé Basin the commanding officer_of the police cutter caused the Dominion flag to be hoisted above the American, at the mast-head. The act was repeated on the following day, in both instances against the protest of the American consul. The facts were then reported to the Department of State in Washington, by whom they were brought to the attention of the GovernorGeneral of Canada in the diplomatic way. Action was at once taken in the matter. Lord Dufferin, the Governor-General, disavowing, in the amplest manner, any intention of showing disrespect to the American flag. He also announced that he had given most particular instructions directing the discontinuance of the practice.-Foreign Relations of the United States, 1872, pp. 200-208. See also the case of the Baltimore, p. 80. |